Everyone should send an e-mail to the state rep http://michaeltryon.com/index.php?option=com_contact&task=view&contact_id=1&Itemid

Easy there John, for all I can tell he just added snowmobiling. I'm still trying to find out who made the original change that removed everything else. Or if this was this a new bill? This is somewhat confusing: There are two bills in the Civil Immunities section: 745 ILCS 65/Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act. 745 ILCS 67/State of Illinois Recreational Use of Leased Land Act.

745 ILCS 65 states that "Recreational or conservation purpose" means entry onto the land of another to conduct hunting or recreational shooting or a combination thereof or any activity solely related to the aforesaid hunting or recreational shooting.

Two different statutes can define similar terms differently; that's pretty normal in statutory drafting. You just use the definition in each only with respect to that statute, and not with respect to the other.

My interpretation of the IL statutes is that "745 ILCS 67/State of Illinois Recreational Use of Leased Land Act" only applies to land that is leased by an owner to the state - not the case with Draper's.

This is my read as well. So I think that under current law, there would be two options to reopen access w/ limited liability: Either work out a nominal lease to the DNR that preserves climber access, or else use an approach like that applied to Muir Valley in the RRG: Post signs indicating that anyone who enters the land without first signing a liability waiver (made available online) is a trespasser. The only shortcoming of the second option is that, in Illinois, there is a "frequent trespasser" doctrine, under which landowners can become liable for hazards on their land if they know that trespassers regularly enter it. So the liability-waiver approach could work only so long as most climbers cooperate by actually filling out the waivers.

The current statute 745 ILCS 65 references Public Act (P.A. 94-0625 effective 8-18-2005). I looked up the PA which can be found in the 94th Assembly and then I found the bill with which it originated. The bill was SB0251 and was introduced by Sen. Deanna Demuzio. One of the purposes of this bill was to change ".. the definition of "recreational or conservation purpose" to include hunting, hiking, recreational shooting, operation of an off-highway vehicle, rock climbing, trapping, horseback riding of an entrant's own horse or horses, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, water or snow skiing, sledding, and snowmobiling."

I don't know what it said before that as very little data is available for the sources in the 85th Assembly.

Anyway, it was all fine and dandy until House Amendment 001 introduced by the Agriculture and Conservation Committee. Here is the relevant change:

(c) "Recreational or conservation purpose" means entry onto the land of another to conduct hunting or recreational shooting or a combination thereof or any activity solely related to the aforesaid hunting or recreational shootingany activity undertaken for conservation, resource management, exercise, education, relaxation, or pleasure on land owned by another. (Underlined parts were added, bolds parts were deleted.) Link to Amendment: http://www.ilga.gov/...;GAID=8&Session=

Now before you go on sending angry emails, please don't take what I've posted here as gospel. I've done some research into when and how this started and this is what I found. Feel free to check what I did an follow up yourself as I make no claim to know what I'm doing in regards to laws and statutes.

That said, I think the smartest action would be to contact Rep. John Fritchey (http://www.fritchey.com/) and tell him how important his amendment is people in Illinois as well as out-of-state visitors. Probably a good idea to ask on what we as a community should do, rather the emailing committees and subcommittees at random. If you're just tuning in, Fritchey introduced a bill that would put other activities besides shooting and hunting into the statute.

I hope this helps everyone understand a little bit about what is going on and you can do to help open this area for climbing again, without putting Eric and his family in danger of losing everything because of some frivolous lawsuit.

This is my read as well. So I think that under current law, there would be two options to reopen access w/ limited liability: Either work out a nominal lease to the DNR that preserves climber access, or else use an approach like that applied to Muir Valley in the RRG: Post signs indicating that anyone who enters the land without first signing a liability waiver (made available online) is a trespasser. The only shortcoming of the second option is that, in Illinois, there is a "frequent trespasser" doctrine, under which landowners can become liable for hazards on their land if they know that trespassers regularly enter it. So the liability-waiver approach could work only so long as most climber's cooperate by actually filling out the waivers.

OR short term solution is to parcel out the cliff face, top-put and area 10-20' downslope and convey to a nonprofit corp holding company who leases out to ICA to manage and implement a waiver system. Youc could, if desired, charge a nonimal fee for administration of system and cost of insurance to indemnify lessor and D&O of lessor. I am sure the Access Fund would provide a grant to cover cost of such, if an to the extent ICA could not raise funds to cover.

As far as amending 745 ICLS 65/1, if Fritchey is authoring the most liberal bill, someone (ICA) should contact the Sierra Club, Access Fund, etc, to have them lobby him as well. He touts the support of the Sierra Club on his website.

If and when the bill is amended, you would then drop the charge of a nominal fee or scrap the system entirely...

As far as trying to reduce premises liability to the duties owed a trespasser by posting trespassing signs, you (MS1) brought up the (easy) argument to counter that.

Well, the frequent trespasser exception only applies if the landowner has notice of frequent trespassers. Since climbers who sign the liability waivers would NOT be trespassers, the exception would only apply if the landowners learned that climbers were frequently climbing without filling out the waivers. So if the climbing community mostly behaves itself, this could still be a workable solution.

So if the climbing community mostly behaves itself, this could still be a workable solution.

Or am I missing something?

It would be nice if one could trust people to behave themselves, but there's always that 1%.

Anyway, there is a sign in booth at Draper's so it wouldn't be a problem to make it easy for people to sign the waver as they enter. The question is how to enforce it? Post a big sign that says you're trespassing unless you sign the waiver, etc.

People seem to be pretty good about signing the forms at Muir in RRG. I guess we might get into tricky questions about how frequent it really has to be. But it seems to be working for the Webers. http://www.muirvalley.com/warnings-rules.php

I think this is probably best left up to the ICA or access fund to lobby the representatives. If I were in Eric's shoes I'd want the language to specifically include "Rock Climbing" vs something general like "excercise".

This is truely a profound loss for the southern IL climbing community. Many thanks to Eric and Kathy for the years of usage and development of Drapers Bluf. I'm looking forward to the day it will be open again to climbers.

People seem to be pretty good about signing the forms at Muir in RRG. I guess we might get into tricky questions about how frequent it really has to be. But it seems to be working for the Webers. http://www.muirvalley.com/warnings-rules.php

If the waiver system is enforced, then those who buck it, trespass and are injured would have a tough time being treated as other than a trespasser. But a half hearted waiver system may not work as it is foreseeable that a crag with a guidebook and internet directions would have many visitors and it would be harder to argue they were trespassers.

responding to Ken, I don't think it hurts to lobby any state rep to amend 745 ICLS 65/1 and ask that it be expanded to include specifically climbing & hiking. The more of us they hear from, the better....So long as an email, letter or call is done in a mature and professional manner. For example, don't lobby your point and argue an irrelevant issue such as "trial lawyers just want to be able to sue landowners." Fritchey is a lawyer, as are most state representatives...

I've been working a trad project there for a while. I'm really disappointed that I won't ever get to send that one as it's an absolute classic.

Really have been impressed that this area has been open to climbers. My thanks to Eric and Kathy for the access I did have.

After reading the bill here..... hhmmmm..

"Recreational or conservation purpose" means entry onto the land of another to conduct hunting or recreational shooting or a combination thereof or any activity solely related to the aforesaid hunting or recreational shooting

Perhaps if I promise to shoot something while there. I can just add my Glock Pistol to my rack and we should be covered. Right? ;)

The more of us they hear from, the better....So long as an email, letter or call is done in a mature and professional manner. For example, don't lobby your point and argue an irrelevant issue such as "trial lawyers just want to be able to sue landowners." Fritchey is a lawyer, as are most state representatives...

I agree 100%. The reason I went through all the trouble of finding out where and how the changes originated is because I saw several things about "contact this guy (Tryon) immediately ..." and as it turns out the guy just added snowmobiling (which is a really interesting addition in its own right - i mean .. illinois and snowmobiling just doesn't seem right.)

We just wanted to let everyone know that the Access Fund has reached out to Eric and Kathy to discuss some potential risk management strategies for Draper’s Bluff. We're also looking to coordinate with Eric and the Illinois Climbers Association, as well as the local Access Fund regional coordinator in Illinois, to begin putting together a political advocacy strategy to address this issue at the state legislative level. Part of our collective strategy will definitely need to be a letter writing campaign to harness the voices of the climbing community. Please stay tuned to Illinois Climbers Association/Access Fund news and action alerts to learn how you can contribute to an organized effort to address this legislative issue.

If you’re not already signed up for Access Fund action alerts, you can do so at http://www.accessfund.org/enews. Or if you’re only interested in this issue, feel free to contact us and we’ll add you to our communications list for this particular issue.

Excellent posts everyone I was feeling completely devastated when I learned of the closure. I'm sure I'm not the only Missouri resident feeling a little helpless right now but I will continue to check in and help with any letter writing or action events that I can.

very depressing news though it has been a year or so since i have been to drapers, this is a place i called home. Eric and Kathy im sorry to hear that this has happened i know how hard you both have worked to keep drapers alive and the countless days you have spent working on it. Ive spent so much time at drapers and miss the place. Ive met so many great people and having the place close is just not right. Ill say some prayers and write some letters, hopefully that will help. Thank you again

Help us get Drapers Bluff reopened. The Illinois General Assembly has a bill in the House, HB 6072, that will provide protection to private landowners, Drapers Bluff and Holy Boulders, if passed. Whether you live in Illinois or are out of state, you can help!